Bombay High Court
Bharat Khimji Shah vs Smt. Laxmibai Popatlal Shah And Ors on 20 June, 2024
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2020
Smt. Laxmibai Popatlal Shah and Others ..... Petitioners
(Ori. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Pankaj Anokhelal Nahar .... Respondent
(Ori. Defendant)
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17397 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2020
Bharat Khimji Shah and others .... Applicants
In the matter between
Smt. Laxmibai Popatlal Shah and Others ..... Petitioners
(Ori. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Pankaj Anokhelal Nahar .... Respondent
(Ori. Defendant)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11139 OF 2019
Pankaj Anokhelal Nahar ..... Petitioner
(Ori. Defendant)
V/s.
Smt. Laxmibai Popatlal Shah and Others .... Respondents
(Ori. Plaintiffs)
___Page No.1 of 19___
20 June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 :::
Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
_____________
Mr. Pradeep Thorat with Ms. Aditi Naikare, for Petitioners in WP/65/2020
and Respondents in WP/11139/2019.
_____________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 20 June 2024.
P.C. :
1) Praceipe is moved for speaking to the minutes of the order
dated 12 June 2024. The following corrections are sought in the said
order.
(I) In paragraph-5, in the twelth line on page no.6, the word
'Testamentary' be replaced with the words 'T.E.'.
(ii) In paragraph-20(i), in the second line on page no.15, the word
'Testamentary' be replaced with the words 'T.E.'.
2) The following corrections be carried out and the order be
read accordingly.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.2 of 19___
20 June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 :::
Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2020
Smt. Laxmibai Popatlal Shah and Others ..... Petitioners
(Ori. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Pankaj Anokhelal Nahar .... Respondent
(Ori. Defendant)
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17397 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2020
Bharat Khimji Shah and others .... Applicants
In the matter between
Smt. Laxmibai Popatlal Shah and Others ..... Petitioners
(Ori. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Pankaj Anokhelal Nahar .... Respondent
(Ori. Defendant)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11139 OF 2019
Pankaj Anokhelal Nahar ..... Petitioner
(Ori. Defendant)
V/s.
Smt. Laxmibai Popatlal Shah and Others .... Respondents
(Ori. Plaintiffs)
___Page No.3 of 19___
20 June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 :::
Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
_____________
Mr. Pradeep Thorat with Ms. Aditi Naikare, for Petitioners in WP/65/2020
and Respondents in WP/11139/2019.
Mr. Kunal R. Kumbhat i/b Mrs. Sunanda R. Kumbhat, for Petitioner in
WP/11139/2019 and Respondent in WP/65/2020.
_____________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 12 June 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1) These are cross-petitions filed by rival parties challenging order dated 7 June 2019 passed by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai by which the application at Exhibit-52 filed by Plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint has been allowed in part and Plaintiffs are permitted to insert para-1(b) in the plaint. Plaintiffs are also permitted to add documents enumerated in para-3 of the Schedule of Amendment in the list of documents annexed to the plaint. Plaintiffs' prayer for insertion of para-2(a) to 2(e) in the plaint is however rejected. Plaintiffs are aggrieved by rejection of amendment with regard to paras-2(a) to 2(e). Plaintiffs challenged the order dated 7 June 2019 rejecting part of the amendment by filing Revision Application No. 210 of 2019 before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court. However, their Revision Application has been rejected by the Appellate Bench by Judgment and Order dated 29 August 2019. Therefore, order dated 29 August 2019 of ___Page No.4 of 19___ 20 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 ::: Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx the Appellate Bench is also subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 65 of 2020 filed by Plaintiffs. The Defendant, on the other hand, is aggrieved by the order dated 7 June 2019 to the limited extent of Small Causes Court permitting Plaintiffs to add documents enumerated in para-3 of the amendment application in the plaint and have filed Writ Petition No. 11139 of 2019 directly before this court.
2) Plaintiffs have instituted T.E. Suit No. 112/2009 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises from Defendant. Suit premises consists of Plot No.8A admeasuring 5 x 10 ft (total 50 ft) at C.S. No. 145 of Mahim Division situated at Popatlal Wadi, Ranade Road, Dadar, Mumbai- 400 028. The suit is instituted under the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1881 on the ground that the suit premises let out to the Defendant is an open plot of land and by virtue of definition of the term 'Premises' under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, open plot of land is excluded from protection under the Rent Act. Plaintiffs therefore claim that tenancy of the Defendant is governed by Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and this is how T.E. Suit No. 112 of 2009 is filed under the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1881.
3) Plaintiffs filed application at Exhibit-52 seeking amendment of the plaint on/or about 18 September 2018. By that time, the trial had already commenced, since the issues were framed on 30 July 2010. According to Plaintiffs, the pleadings sought to be incorporated in the Plaint are based on ___Page No.5 of 19___ 20 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 ::: Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx information revealed after the death of the Original Plaintiff on 15 December 2014. In Para-1(b) of the Schedule of Amendment, Plaintiffs sought to incorporate pleadings relating to grant of probate to the heirs of the Original Plaintiff by this Court on 31 January 2017. In paras-2(a) to 2(e) of the Schedule, Plaintiffs sought to incorporate various events leading to grant and transfer of tenancy in favour of the Defendant. Thus, the events sought to be incorporated in para-1(b) were after filing of the suit whereas the ones sought to be incorporated in paras-2(a) to 2(e) were obviously relating to events that had occurred prior to filing of the suit. The application was resisted by the Defendant by filing reply. The Small Causes Court, by order dated 7 June 2019, has partly allowed the application for amendment at Exhibit-52 by permitting Plaintiffs to incorporate only para-1(b) of the Schedule in the plaint. The prayer for incorporation of paras-2(a) to 2(e) of the Schedule in the plaint is however not granted. Plaintiffs are however permitted to add documents enumerated in para-3 of the amendment application in the list of documents annexed with the plaint.
4) As observed above, the Plaintiffs are aggrieved by rejection of prayer for incorporation of paras-2(a) to 2(e) in the plaint whereas the Defendant is aggrieved by Direction No.3 of the order dated 7 June 2019 which permits Plaintiffs to incorporate documents enumerated in para-3 of the Schedule in the list of documents annexed with the plaint. Since an order rejecting amendment is revisable under the provisions of Section 42(4) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, Plaintiffs filed Revision Application No. 210 of 2019 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court ___Page No.6 of 19___ 20 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 ::: Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx challenging the order of the Small Causes Court dated 7 June 2019. The Appellate Bench has however dismissed the Revision Application of the Plaintiffs by order dated 29 August 2019. Plaintiffs have filed Writ Petition No. 65/2020 challenging the order of the Small Causes Court dated 7 June 2019 and of the Appellate Bench dated 29 August 2019. On the other hand, the Defendant has filed Writ Petition No. 11139 of 2019 challenging direction-3 of the operative portion of the Small Causes Court's order dated 7 June 2019.
5) I have heard Mr. Thorat, the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs in support of Writ Petition No. 65 of 2020 and opposing Writ Petition No. 11139 of 2019. He would submit that in para-2(a) to 2(e) of the proposed amendment application, Plaintiffs merely desire to incorporate events leading to transfer/assignment of tenancy in favour of the Defendant. That the said events are necessary to be brought on record to buttress the case of the Plaintiffs that what is leased out is merely an open piece of land without any structure thereby making the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 inapplicable to the suit premises. That therefore the averments sought to be incorporated in paras-2(a) to 2(e) of the Schedule of amendment are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. Mr. Thorat would submit that Plaintiffs have given adequate justification for the delay in filing the amendment application relating to events occurring prior to filing of the suit. That the amendment application clearly pleaded that the relevant information came to the knowledge of legal heirs of the Original Plaintiff only after his death during pendency of Testamentary Petition in this Court when the relevant ___Page No.7 of 19___ 20 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 ::: Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx file was traced. He would submit that for delay in moving the amendment application, Plaintiffs could have been subject to consequences of costs rather than rejecting the amendment altogether. That since the Original Plaintiff has expired during the pendency of his cross-examination, the evidence is otherwise required to be led afresh thereby causing no prejudice to the Defendant. That delay in decision of the suit otherwise enures to the benefit of the Defendant, who is occupying the suit premises. That the Small Causes Court has otherwise permitted the Plaintiffs to incorporate various documents enumerated in para-3 of the schedule of amendment to the list of documents annexed with the plaint and all those documents have relevance to the averments in paras-2(a) to 2(e) of the schedule of amendment. That it is inconceivable that only documents are permitted to be added but not the relevant averments. In support of his contention, Mr. Thorat would rely upon judgement of the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another 1. He would also draw attention to order dated 8 January 2018 passed by the Trial Court in T.E. Suit No. 113 of 2009 involving another tenant and would submit that identical pleadings are permitted to be incorporated in the plaint of the said suit.
6) Per-contra, Mr. Kumbhat the learned counsel appearing for the Defendant in support of Writ Petition No. 11139 of 2019 and opposing Writ Petition No. 65 of 2020 would submit that the Small Causes Court has rightly rejected the prayer for incorporation of paras-2(a) to 2(e) of schedule 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128.
___Page No.8 of 19___
20 June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 :::
Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
of amendment as all the events stated have occurred prior to filing of the suit and were in full knowledge of the original Plaintiff. That it is inconceivable that the Original Plaintiff, who knew all those events and who had consciously omitted to incorporate those events in the plaint, his legal heirs can now be permitted to incorporate the same after the death of the Original Plaintiff. That the suit has been pending since the year 2009 and was prosecuted by the Original Plaintiff till his death on 15 December 2015. However, he consciously omitted to incorporate those events in the plaint as the same have no relevance to the decree sought in the suit. That since tenancy of the Defendant is admitted, how he became tenant becomes irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the issue of recovery of possession. So far as grant of prayer for incorporation of documents enumerated in para-3 of schedule of amendment in the list of documents annexed to the plaint is concerned, Mr. Kumbhat would submit that once prayer for incorporation of paras-2(a) to 2(e) was rejected, the Small Causes Court ought to have rejected amendment suggested in para-3 of the Schedule as well. That once Plaintiffs are not permitted to incorporate averments, they cannot be permitted to rely upon documents relating to those averments. He would submit that Clause-3 of the operative portion of the impugned order of the Small Causes Court dated 7 June 2019, deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, Mr. Kumbhat would rely upon judgments :
i. J. Sameul & Ors. V/s. Gattu Mahesh and others2
ii. Revajeetu Builders & Developers V/s. Narayanswamy & Sons
and others3
2 2012 DGLS(SC) 36.
3 Civil Appeal No. 6921 of 2009 decided on 9 October 2009.
___Page No.9 of 19___
20 June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 :::
Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
iii. South Konkan Distilleries & Anr V/s. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors.4 iv. FGP Limited V/s. Saleh Hooseini Doctor and another5 v. Malanbai w/o Bhimrao Dalvi and Anr V/s. Sunita w/o Kalyan Pingle and others6.
vi. Prabhakar Sadashiv Gokhale and another V/s. Ramesh Shankar Ladkat and others7 vii. Amartya s/o Surendra Deshmukh and another V/s. Sheela w/o Rameshrao Deshmukh8 Mr. Kumbhat would pray for dismissal of Writ Petition No. 65 of 2020 and for allowing of Writ Petition No. 11139 of 2019.
7) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration.
8) Original Plaintiff filed T.E. Suit No. 113 of 2009 seeking recovery of possession of suit premises. According to the Original Plaintiff, suit premises comprise of only open plot of land and that therefore provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 do not apply to the suit premises. In this regard, relevant averments in para-6 of the plaint reads thus : -
"6. The Plaintiffs states that the suit premises which was let out to the Defendant is open plot of land. By virtue of definition of premises under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, open plot of land is excluded from the protection of the The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 19999. Therefore the tenancy of Defendant is governed under General Law i.e. Transfer of Property Act, 1881 amended till date."
4 2008 DGLS(SC) 1190.
5 Chamber Summons (L) No. 162 of 2014 in Suit No. 3505 of 1991 decided on 31 July 2014. 6 Writ Petition No. 9877 of 2017 decided on 8 June 2018. (Aurangabad Bench) 7 Writ Petition No. 365 of 2017 decided on 30 June 2017. 8 Writ Petition No. 364 of 2017 decided on 30 August 2018. (Nagpur Bench) ___Page No.10 of 19___ 20 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 ::: Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
9) On the other hand, it is the contention of the Defendant that the suit premises comprises of constructed structure as well and that therefore the Defendant is entitled for protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Thus, the moot issue involved in the suit is about applicability of provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to the suit premises. In fact, Issue No.1 framed by the Trial Court is about nature of the suit premises being open plot of land.
10) Perusal of paras-2(a) to 2(e) of Schedule of Amendment which was sought to be incorporated in the plaint would indicate that Plaintiffs desire to incorporate the events leading to assignment of tenancy in favour of the Defendant. In paras-2(a) to 2(e) of the schedule of amendment, it is sought to be contended that Original Plaintiff was the owner of open plot of land bearing Plot No.8 admeasuring 14 x 10 ft (total 140 sq. ft), which was originally let out to Krishnaji Ramchandra Gaokar, who did not pay rent but instead unlawfully let out the land to Dhaku Shankar Chavan and Krishna Govind Angne. That the Original Plaintiffs therefore filed RAE Suit No. 5795 of 1962 against Krishnaji Ramchandra Gaokar by joining the occupants, Dhaku Shankar Chavan and Krishan Govind Angne as Defendant Nos.2 and
3. That the suit was decreed on 8 March 1965. When the decree was put in execution, obstruction was caused by Shri. Ramchandra Sitaram Gavade, Proprietor of Dadar Cut Piece House and one B.N. Salgaonkar, Proprietor, Eveready Ladies Tailors by taking out Obstructionist Notice. Consent Terms were filed in the said obstruction notice under which, Obstructionists were ___Page No.11 of 19___ 20 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 ::: Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx given time to vacate the premises. That the Obstructionists, Mr. R.S. Gavade and Mr. B.N. Salgaonkar did not act on Consent Terms who applied for extension of time to vacate the premises and to pay the amounts. Again Consent Terms were filed between the parties under which Plot No.8 was subdivided into parts, being plot Nos.8A and 8B. Under the Consent Terms, Ramchandra Sitaram Gavade was accepted as direct tenant of Plot No.8B, whereas Mr. Salgaonkar was accepted as direct tenant in respect of Plot No.8A. That said Salgaonkar, who became direct tenant of Plot No.8A admeasuring 5 ft x 10 ft, assigned his tenancy rights to the Defendant on 29 December 2001 with the consent of the Original Plaintiff.
11) The above events are sought to be incorporated by the Plaintiffs essentially to buttress their case that what is let out to the Defendant is merely an open piece of land. By way of amendment, it was sought to be demonstrated that originally Plot was singular one, which was later subdivided into Plot Nos.8A and 8B and Defendant became tenant in respect of Plot No.8A admeasuring 5 x 10 ft. Thus, the amendments are essentially aimed at proving that Defendant is a tenant only in respect of open piece of land. In my view, the said events have direct bearing on the moot issue involved in the suit. The Small Causes Court in my view, has erred in holding that "moreover statement made in paragraph nos.2(a) to 2(e) are not at all the issue involved in the present suit to decide the same".
12) So far as delay in moving the amendment application is concerned, there is no doubt to the position that the events sought to be incorporated by ___Page No.12 of 19___ 20 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 ::: Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx amendment have taken place before filing of the suit and were in full knowledge of the Original Plaintiff. Why the Original Plaintiff omitted to incorporate those events in the plaint is difficult to guess at this stage. However, as observed above, the amendment sought to be incorporated in paras-2(a) to 2(e) of the Schedule have a direct bearing on the issue involved in the suit. Plaintiffs have offered following explanation in their application for non-incorporation of those averments by the Original Plaintiff :
"I say that during the pendency of the Testamentary Petition in the Hon'ble High Court, the present Plaintiffs came across a file of the deceased original Plaintiff which was earlier misplaced and not traceable. Since the above referred file was traced out by the Plaintiffs during the pendency of the Testamentary proceeding, it is absolutely essential to bring on record the earlier eviction proceeding and orders passed thereon and the circumstances under which one Shri. B.N. Salgaonkar became the tenant of the deceased original Plaintiff."
13) Plaintiffs have thus pleaded that the information relating to averments sought to be incorporated in paras-2(a) to 2(e) of the Schedule was noticed when the relevant file was traced during pendency of the Testamentary Petition after the death of the Original Plaintiff. In my view, some explanation is provided by the Plaintiff for non-incorporation of those events in the plaint as originally filed.
14) The law relating to amendment of pleadings has been summarised by the Apex Court in its judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) in which the Apex Court has held as under:
___Page No.13 of 19___ 20 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 ::: Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.
(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed
(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and
(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).
(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless
(i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration,
(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit,
(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or
(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.
(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
___Page No.14 of 19___ 20 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 ::: Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
(vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
(x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.
(xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)
15) In my view, once the proposed amendment is found to be relevant for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties, the same ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court. The delay in moving the amendment application could have been taken care of by imposing costs on the Plaintiffs.
___Page No.15 of 19___
20 June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 :::
Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
16) Mr. Kumbhat, has submitted that the evidence of the Original
Plaintiff has already been recorded. On the contrary, it is Mr. Thorat's contention that during currency of his cross-examination, Original Plaintiff has passed away and that the current Plaintiffs will have to again lead evidence in support of their claim. In that view of the matter, no prejudice would be caused to the Defendant if the proposed amendment in paras-2(a) to 2(e) is allowed to be incorporated in the plaint. As rightly contended by Mr. Thorat, delay in decision of the suit enures to the benefit of the Defendant who is occupying the suit premises. I am therefore of the view that the proposed amendment as incorporated in paras-2(a) to 2(e) needs to be granted by imposition of costs on the Plaintiffs.
17) So far as Writ Petition No. 11139 of 2019 is concerned, nothing survives therein once it is held that the amendments proposed in paras-2(a) to 2(e) deserve to be incorporated in the plaint. This is because Writ Petition No. 11139 of 2019 is premised on rejection of prayer for incorporation of paras-2(a) to 2(e) of the Schedule of amendment. Once paras-2(a) to 2(e) are permitted to be incorporated, Plaintiffs would obviously be entitled to rely upon documents enumerated in para-3 of the Schedule which are referred in the averments in paras-2(a) to 2(e).
___Page No.16 of 19___
20 June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 :::
Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
18) Mr. Kumbhat's reliance on various judgments as listed above
does not assist the case of the Defendant. In J. Samuel (supra), the Apex Court has held that amendment can be allowed only if no injustice is done on the other side and when the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in the controversy. I have already held that the amendment does not prejudice the Defendant to such an extent that the same must be rejected. The amendment is also found to be necessary to determine the real question of controversy between the parties. Revajeetu Builders & Developers and South Konkan Distilleries (supra) is relied upon in support of the contention that if the test of necessity for amendment to determine real question of controversy is not met, amendment must be disallowed. The judgment would have no application to the present case where the proposed pleadings are directly relevant to the moot issue of tenanted premises being open piece of land or constructed structure. South Konkan Distilleries is relied upon on the issue of amendment being barred on the date of filing of the suit and the judgment therefore has no application to the present case. The judgment of this Court in FGP Limited (supra) is relied upon in support of the contention that new and inconsistent case cannot be introduced by way of amendment. In the present case, amendment is sought to be incorporated only to buttress the original plea of tenanted premises being vacant plot of land. Reliance of Defendant on judgments in Malanbai w/o. Bhimrao Dalvi, Prabhakar Sadashiv Gokhale and Amartya s/o Surendra Deshmukh (supra) also does not assist the case of the Defendant. As observed above, the principles relating to amendment of pleadings has been summarised by the Apex Court in its judgment in Life ___Page No.17 of 19___ 20 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 ::: Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx Insurance Corporation of India and it is not necessary to deal with other judgments, particularly of this Court.
19) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the view that the entire amendment sought to be incorporated by Plaintiffs ought to have been allowed by the Small Causes Court.
20) Writ Petition No. 65 of 2020 accordingly succeeds and Writ Petition No.11139 of 2019 fails and I proceed to pass the following order :
(I) Order dated 7 June 2019 passed by the Small Causes Court on application at Exhibit-52 in T.E. Suit No. 112 of 2009 is set aside to the extent of refusal of amendment suggested in paras-2(a) to 2(e) of the Schedule of amendment.
(II) Plaintiffs are permitted to incorporate paras-2(a) to 2(e) after para-
2 in the plaint by carrying out necessary amendment within a period of four weeks.
(III) Plaintiffs shall pay to the Defendant cost of Rs.25,000/- within four weeks.
21) With the above directions, Writ Petition No. 65 of 2020 is allowed and Writ Petition No. 11139 of 2019 is dismissed.
___Page No.18 of 19___
20 June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 :::
Neeta Sawant STM-WP-65-2020.docx
22) With the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 65 of 2020, nothing
survives in Interim Application No. 17397 of 2023 and the same also stands disposed of.
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Note : Corrections are carried out in paras-5 and 20(i) only pursuant to speaking to minutes order dated 20 June 2024.
___Page No.19 of 19___ 20 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2024 03:05:51 :::